Residents won’t go with the Flow plan
SOUTHERN Gold Coast residents are hiring top town planners to show council how a new development will block their ocean views.
Councillors are expected to make a decision on approving the 13-storey Flow building planned for Petrie Terrace at Rainbow Bay at a planning committee next month.
Rather than delegate authority to town planners, area councillor Gail O’Neill has sought for the code accessible application to be determined by a vote of councillors. Residents living in nearby units and body corporates have employed town planners to provide visual evidence of how Flow will block out views.
While the City Plan does not protect views, town planners argue it must “minimise unreasonable view impact” through appropriate setbacks and building separation.
Photographs suggest the tower will block the entire beach view from the kitchen at a seventh-floor neighbouring Carool unit.
On a fourth-floor unit, much of the beach view from the main room will be dominated by the new tower.
In a letter to council, Storey and Castle Planning Pty Ltd director Jake Storey said his clients were concerned about the unacceptable impact on their residential amenity due to the building’s height, bulk, lack of sufficient setbacks and visual dominance.
“Most of these impacts are a direct consequence of accommodating excessive residential density, resulting in the proposal being a clear overdevelopment of the site,” he wrote.
“The proposed development in its current form is an overdevelopment of the site and will have serious consequential impacts by way of inadequate setbacks, excessive bulk, lack of privacy, noise, overshadowing and traffic.”
The development site is 1012sq m for a tower which will include 20 apartments with a total of 63 bedrooms – a 57.5 per cent increase on the residential density overlay for the area.
Reel Planning Pty Ltd principal planner Kieran Ryan, on behalf of the Carool Apartments body corporate, told council the tower would lead to an overdevelopment of the site.
“The planning scheme seeks to achieve tiered setbacks so that buildings become more slender as they become taller,” he wrote.
“The application of setbacks intended for the lower levels of this building has meant that the proposal does not create adequate separation between buildings and as a result impacts amenity and outlook.”
In March, council officers wrote to the applicant seeking responses on 20 separate issues as “a requirement for a favourable decision”. Urbis planners said in a 24-page email that the applicant had provided a complete response to council’s information request.
After numerous meetings with council officers, an updated proposal was completed which “sufficiently addresses the concerns raised by council and ought to be considered favourably”.